부당승무정지, 부당해고 및 부당노동행위 구제 재심판정취소 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the costs incurred by participation.
The details and details of the Re-Examination Decision was established on January 4, 1980 and the Plaintiff ordinarily employs more than 500 workers and operates urban bus transportation business.
The Intervenor C was employed as an urban bus driver on December 17, 2014, while the Intervenor B was employed by the Plaintiff on January 16, 2015.
On December 9, 2015, the Plaintiff issued a 25-day suspension of service on the part of the Intervenor B (hereinafter “instant suspension of service”) on the ground of traffic accidents twice within one year, and notified that the period of service expires on January 15, 2016. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the Intervenor C that the period of service has expired (hereinafter “the notice of the expiration of the instant period”).
On February 12, 2016, the Intervenor filed an application for remedy with the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission by asserting that the notification of the suspension of the instant work on board and the expiration of the period constitutes an unfair disciplinary action, and the notification of the expiration of the period of this case constitutes an unfair labor practice.
On May 2, 2016, the Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission fully accepted the Intervenor’s request for remedy on the ground that “The reason for suspending the service on board of the instant case is recognized, but the determination is inappropriate.” The Intervenor has the right to renew the employment contract to the Intervenor, and there is no reasonable ground to refuse the Intervenor’s refusal to renew the employment contract. In addition, the notification of the expiration of the term of validity of the instant case constitutes unfair labor practices
On June 10, 2016, the Plaintiff appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission, and filed an application for review seeking the revocation of the determination with the said Gyeonggi Regional Labor Relations Commission.
On September 23, 2016, the National Labor Relations Commission dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for reexamination by adding to the above reasons that the suspension of work on board the instant case was procedural defect.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant decision on reexamination”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence 1 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 and 9, and the entire purport of the pleading is legitimate.